mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanour changes.

John Kerry rejects leading climate scientist's claim Paris talks were 'fraud'
Read more
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

QuoteGator's Mom
Oh. The $100 Billion is GCF's fundraising goal - to be raised from public, private and philanthropic sources by 2020.

Aspirational but not in the bank.

You can spend cash, you can even spend pledges (receivables) - but you can't spend a goal.

It sounds like more than a "goal". It sounds like as part of the Paris Agreement advanced countries have "formally" agreed to mobilize USD 100 billion per year for the GCF.

"Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. "

Scientists are only able to be honest AFTER they retire because of the climate change mafia.

William M. Gray, the emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. The go to person for hurricane predictions had this to say.
Gray was skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he said is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government. Although he agreed that global warming was taking place, he argued that humans were only responsible for a tiny portion and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle. In June 2011, Gray wrote a paper directed at the American Meteorological Society, criticizing their advocation of anthropogenic global warming. He said that members were following a political agenda rather than a scientific one as well as working for special interests rather than the scientific community at large.

Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. She resigned from her post in January 2017 and had this to say.
"The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate."

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

"If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation."

"Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

"Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. "

"Formally agreed" sounds like more than a capital campaign to me. And you keep dropping the point that the "agreement" calls for USD 100 billion per year starting in 2020.

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

As of June 2017, the Green Climate Fund has raised USD 24.3 million equivalent in pledges from 3 regional governments. The objective is for all pledges to be converted into contribution agreements within one year from the time at which they are made.

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

QuoteGator's Mom
As of June 2017, the Green Climate Fund has raised USD 24.3 million equivalent in pledges from 3 regional governments. The objective is for all pledges to be converted into contribution agreements within one year from the time at which they are made.

You talk millions, this chart says billions. This is the initial contribution to hold over until 2020. It's called the IRM (Initial Resource Mobilization). The US has already contributed $1B.
[www.greenclimate.fund]

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

The US has pledged $3 billion - paid $1 billion. An agreement has been signed for this amount.

Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

QuoteGator's Mom
Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Hmm, given our current economy, I HIGHLY doubt any of that will happen.

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

Janet Yellen will be presenting her annual report to Congress in mid-July.

QuoteLiquidFluoride

QuoteGator's Mom
Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Hmm, given our current economy, I HIGHLY doubt any of that will happen.

Re: Paris Climate Agreement

How about investing in and invigorating our economy while keeping and protecting our clean energy, environment, lands, air, water, oceans, wildlife and people?

You think companies should be allowed to pollute our waters with toxins and get away with it with a slap on the wrist measly fine while taxpayer's subsidize and pay for the majority of cleanups and spills and people directly affected die from their proximity and pollution caused directly by these companies?

Oil spills, chemical wastes and dispersed toxic waste are rampant, much more than reported.
The cumulative effects, over time are mind boggling as the numbers.

So it's better to ignore something because it doesn't fit into your narrative, than do anything to to be proactive?
What's an entire planet and everything on it worth?

Didn't realize we had a perfect planet B and a way to get there waiting for ALL of us!

I guess we don't deserve to have protections for clean energy, water, land air, etc., according to this present self-serving administration.
They can sell us out for their 30 pieces of silver.
No problem, as long as it isn't you on the receiving end.
And hopefully, if you are, have Affordable Healthcare to see you and your loved ones through it.

You think companies should be allowed to pollute our waters with toxins and get away with it with a slap on the wrist measly fine while taxpayer's subsidize and pay for the majority of cleanups and spills and people directly affected die from their proximity and pollution caused directly by these companies?

Moving to the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Only $17.95

The Settlers Handbook for the U.S. Virgin Islands is your guide to moving to St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John and Water Island.

The current 18th Edition, released in January 2016, will help you explore your dream of island living. A solid reference book, it was first published in 1975. That's 40 years of helping people move to the islands. A must read. Order today.